Got faith?

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps it might be better to note that the standards in accepting religion and the presence of a deity that controls the universe are obviously radically different from those based on rational observation. As someone who is aware of a good deal of rational outlook on the universe and is totally puzzled by the standards accepted by the faithful in examining the nature of reality I am very wary of and frequently horrified by many of the absolutes proclaimed by the religious in determining behavior in confronting the forces of nature and dealing with human social problems. History has overwhelmingly provided numerous examples of religious misunderstanding of how to deal with the forces of nature and a very large number of traditional religious social interactions have resulted in a huge amount of unnecessary misery and unwarranted fears. To sit idly by and declare, for a person distressed by this suffering, that it is best to do nothing seems to me to be a basic dereliction of responsibility for the general welfare of humanity.

Hey, I resemble that remark ... and I also happen like the way you think!

I suspect a bit of hyperbole there, but nevertheless ...


Sure, but calling believers idiots and/or whatever else is truly a pathetic manner for actually trying to be of any real assistance to the allegedly distressed.

it comes to the point of idiot calling because the ears of the religious have been shut since time immemorial.
no religion is not a homogenous mass, but you want to take share in the practices, the tradition and the values, when we get affected i think it is the direct responsibility of the people involved,
, the reason it often falls back to the christian religions is because that is what directly affects people here.

do i believe its right to use personal attacks for this purpose? no.
but i understand why it happens.

Lee's ears have always seemed open to me... perhaps you are projecting.

I do not call people idiots. I merely point out that religion is idiocy. There is a vital difference. If I thought they were idiots there would be no way to point out the error of their thinking since they were incapable of thinking. But I am an optimist and have hopes they are thinking people who can realize what might be idiocy and what is not.

Sure ... and so now let other people be aware how pathetic it is when it does!

Just this morning I was on the phone with a close "fellowship friend" who also occasionally encounters "the ears of the religious have been shut [or at least surely do often seem closed]" ...

... and she was/is wanting to know how to try to be helpful to such folks (or in spite of them) anyway ...

... and the word "idiot/s" never found its way into our lengthy conversation.

@91:

To be fair, SAND calling someone an idiot carries no meaning. It would be significant if he said so and so was NOT an idiot.

But as for ears being stopped, you do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

If anyone's ears are open, try HEARING this:

A. It is precisely because throughout my agnostic days my eyes and ears were open that I after long time shifted Christian

B. I have rarely seen Christians put their hands over their ears and shout "Can't hear you, go away, I don't have to listen to this." I have often [including in my atheist days] seen the atheists doing that.

C. SOME religiosi and SOME atheists tweak their definitions so as to declare all evidence from the other side invalid. This is unconscionable in a scientist [and not easily overlooked in any human] - but that has never stopped proponents of one scientific theory or political stance or religious view from doing it to others.

----------------------

We humans too easily fail to recognize that two people can and often will examine and seriously consider THE SAME BODY OF EVIDENCE and cpome to different conclusions. The elephant rules till our eyes are opened.

I prefer the word "deception" there in place of "idiocy", yet we do agree in principle (and even with Alex) ...

@philologos

i dont care what your religion or beliefs are, as long as they dont force whole societys to bend to their will.

as for B i have seen a lot of christians do excactly that, not that it doesnt change the fact many atheists do as well.
again i agree with C, it is a major problem of humanity in general.

@lee,
in real life i do, usually i dont discuss religion in real life but no matter what discussion i am a part of i hate personal attacks,


all i am saying is when you actually choose to be a part of a group, no matter size, you hold some responsibility to society outside the group that superceeds the needs of the group.
now atheism is a lack of a group, even so we could use some better moderation of the extreme atheists, just as religion could for their extremists.

Interesting thought.

One of the most unacknowledged points in this discussion is that, although there are many differences in the different religions there is a rigid demand in most that the universe conform to the dogmas of their proposed beliefs.Atheists have no dogmas, most of them have rather individual and varied views of the nature of their reality and they have no written document of highly doubtful veracity demanding total acceptance to justify their viewpoint. What they have is a huge and tremendously precise library of excellent observations that have come up totally empty insofar as a supernatural force is concerned.All they can say about those observations is that they have a tremendous integrity, they can be repeated by anybody any time to be confirmed and they contain all the basic functional knowledge that underlies current technological civilization. That seems sufficient to me.

Oodain:

I would not force even my loathing of Chomsky or my disdain for daylight saving on anyone even if I could, which I can't, having no power nor position nor charisma nor persuasive words, so why even try?

I am well aware and concede [see my use of rarely] that there are those who claim the state of Christian and for all I know may be ahead of me in heaven though I hope I do not have to sit next to them who do the "don't confuse me with facts" shtick. Statistically I happen to have met more of these who were not Christians - lucked out. But it is a trait of some humans.

I am not going to address the question of the responsibility of a subgroup to the larger unit - I have never thought in thosde terms and would need to meditate.

HOWEVER:

Neither theism nor atheism is per se either group membership nor anarchy. In PPR, I trust inthe God of the Christians, but I am NOT a member of any group here or in real life. I am as I have always been Doubting Thomas, the Cat that Walked by Himself, the Cautious Raven and the Universal Heretic.

On the other hand, a number of the atheists here present have constituted themselves a loose federation. Isn't Freedom From Religion a group by any reasonable definition?

Ever since I have been a child the taste of liver nauseated me. All of my life I have denied myself the consumption of liver. Nevertheless I find it difficult to consider myself a member of the non-liver consumption group, or even that such a group has a formal existence.

I break my rule to note that I too from my earliest memories have been disgusted by liver [which I was too often forced to eat]. The smell of cooking kidneys is arguably worse, but no kidney was ever forced into my mouth.

I am not a joiner.

We in theory COULD form a group dedicated to the elimination of liver as an item of diet, and indubitably in the terms of the New Math we constitute a Set.

But I do not think the world has any use for a formally constituted group on this basis, and if it is formed I shall not join.

In principle as well as in personal practice, I would say essentially the same ... and it can easily bother me whenever someone else might just assume I apparently-obviously just must belong in one or another group, stereotype, camp or category.


... and yet some of them do still wear matching boots here in PPR and do not really care which individual boot might happen to be doing any or all of any current ass-kicking or -stomping.


... and the rest of us are expected to believe the titles of those volumes are things like "Idiots, All!" and so on?!


Substitute "supernatural" for "technological" there and I can make exactly the same kind of statement and back it up well.